'Nothin' But A Good Time: The Uncensored Story of '80s Hair Metal' Part III

"The Final Chapter" is how Nothin' But A Good Time: The Uncensored Story of '80s Hair Metal ends.

There's interviews with Brian Forsythe of KIX (you know I love him), Warren DiMartini, Stevie Rachelle of Tuff and more. This section obviously focuses on the end of the Sunset Strip party, the introduction of grunge to the world and the surprise resurgence of Glam in the early 2000s (this site started in 2006).

Bret Michaels goes over the famous fight he had with C.C. DeVille backstage at the MTV Video Music Awards in 1991 and there's a long look at the drug and alcohol addictions of many bands. Honestly the pre-performance interviews with Bret and C.C. for MTV were cringeworthy because C.C. was so clearly drugged out of his mind. I'm glad the doc included those interviews - the female reporter was frustrated the entire time and getting more so as arguments between the two Poison members raged on.

RATT guitarist DiMartini didn't really want to talk about Robbin Crosby's heroin addiction, but he eventually did and it was pretty heart-wrenching. Fosythe talked about his own addictions, smoking crack ("the worst!"), being arrested and having to get a day job after the party stopped.

My favorite part of this final section of the documentary was Nuno Bettencourt's "Sebastian Bach story." Extreme and Skid Row were on a flight back from playing a gig together. Bach is drunk, the flight attendant cuts him off, he isn't having it and finds more booze... and chaos ensues. There's a fight, a physical interaction with the pilot and an old couple even gets involved. You need to watch just for this story - and the animations - alone, trust me!

Oh and there's a Beavis and Butt-Head Winger section too.

Reflecting on Glam music all these years later - and the rise of grunge - I have pretty much decided that Nirvana didn't kill the scene. The labels killed the scene. Like capitalists often do, they got too greedy and created too many cheap imitations of the real thing, diluted their brand and it all came crashing down.

Hindsight being 20/20, you have to believe big time music execs from that era probably wished they had passed on signing some of the third and fourth tier bands and instead put more energy into the continued creative development of acts like Poison and RATT. The right marketing and songwriting advice could have seen the best bands of the era keep right on plugging with big songs and videos all through the 90s. Instead, the baby was thrown out with the bath water and it was time to chase the latest new trend. Still, remember this: glam had more than a decade and true grunge basically had less than five years. I said what I said.

[RELATED: Part two recap and review]

Comments

[Him]

Spirited post, Allyson. Always love it when you pick a lane and defend it!!! That said, just a few observations.

You make this observation: ". . . . I have pretty much decided that Nirvana didn't kill the scene. The labels killed the scene. Like capitalists often do, they got too greedy and created too many cheap imitations of the real thing, diluted their brand and it all came crashing down." And then you follow it with this: ". . . . The right marketing and songwriting advice could have seen the best bands of the era keep right on plugging with big songs and videos all through the 90s."

I think the start and end of that former quotation are true. Bands like Nirvana, Alice in Chains, and Soundgarden didn't kill hair metal. They offered something different. They got signed. People liked it. The problem is blaming capitalism for killing one thing and not noting that it also fed people the other. Those grunge bands eventually found their way onto the same 'greedy' labels that dropped metal acts left and right when they stopped being popular. Why? Because you sell what sells, right? And, to be fair, some of those legacy metal bands tried their hand at selling something different. A few of them did okay doing that. Most didn't. Which leads to the end of that quotation, where you mention that these corps were signing this, that, and the other facsimile of the originals. True. But then they stopped doing that when it became clear that it wasn't working. At the same time, there were some emerging bands that got squeezed out by this changing of the guard. So, perhaps, that is a credit to your overall point (even if that means that you have to grant that not all the bands being signed during this transition should be placed into a tier that is below the originals, given that they actually had less of a chance to develop a sound and an audience).

Respectfully, I think the latter quotation really doesn't work. What exactly could some of those original acts done to keep the Glam/Hair Metal wave alive? Some of them would likely have ended up dead. Others might have found a somewhat smaller patch of dirt to plow. And guess what? Some of them did, and then reemerged when Glam/Hair Metal had a bit of renaissance in the late-90s/early-00s . . . a reemergence which continues, even as some of those bands pack it in and new ones come in to take their place.

And then there are the other metal outliers: the Iron Maidens, the AC/DCs, the GnRs, the Priests, the Def Leps, that had ups and downs that seemed to largely be beyond the machinations of the 'greedy' corps and were more about interpersonal dynamics either keeping them, or bring them back, together during the grunge era. Sure, they struggled. But, my oh my, they are also part of this resurgence of legacy acts from metal write broadly.

The point that hopefully ties all of these observations together is simply this: as much as we all love the glory days (and bands) of the 80s Glam/Hair Metal scene, they didn't just arrive without precedent. They were (sorta' like the NWBHM) a group of bands with varied influences and interesting origins. As it was with the grunge bands (just look at those old AiC videos!), and other metal acts (I am thinking about you, Pantera, and also you, Stryper). I guess we love the branding and marketing as much as we are going to pull for those brands that were marketed to us when we were young, right? I mean, The Rolling Stones? Ick. Those guys are sooooo old. Mott the Hoople? Mott the Who?!?! Black Sabbath? They get a pass because they are timeless. You get my drift.

The other point I am trying to make is that I find it hard to fault corporations for doing what corporations do: find a product that sells . . . and then they sell it until it doesn't sell. That's sorta' how things work. What is the alternative? I guess we know the answer now: new corporate models that maximize their profits at the expense of the artists. Wait! Is that really a new model or a new version of the old scene? You know the answer (with a caveat about how budgets are spent for things like promotion, etc., etc.). But, still?

Great post, Allyson. I am now sorta' looking forward to watching this, even if Jeff's comments have me concerned.

Hope everyone is doing well!

[fletch]

Well, what do you do when a billionaire tells you he's aborting his foster child to our home, when his wife walks around telling everyone

[fletch]

...that must've been a tough pill to swallow. Actually , I'm hoping it was.

[fletch]

What I remember was walking Nick, DJ and the girls around the park.

DJ screamed out mommy with open hands.

I called the agency after I left the situation. She said, "no problem".

Sara Packer called me in a fit of rage. I was so freaked out by her that I actually asked her, "You're the supervisor?".

Yet metal toy has it right

[fletch]

I said to her, "Seriously, you're the supervisor and you have a problem with what happened. e kept screaming at me. I finally, exhaustedly screamed at her, "There's something seriously wrong with you. You're fcking nuts." And, hung up the phone.

The next day, I was asked to use my charm and apologize.

I absolutely refused.

Years later, I sing that.